4 ms·

I think there is a large discrepancy between hypothetically viable, and demonstrably viable.

by iab 5y ago

willis936 5y ago
The designs are demonstrably viable. Hundreds of nukes were detonated unnecessarily to prove this point. Nations don't need to make new designs. Gun and super designs are common knowledge.
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  If you want to be on the UN Security council you need to detonate a nuke somewhere in a desert. It's a requirement.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > If you want to be on the UN Security council you need to detonate a nuke somewhere in a desert. No, you don’t. Every UN member rotates through UNSC seats. If you want a permanent Security Council seat, you need to be or be generally recognized successor in interest to one of five powers that got those seats after WW2, when only one had detonated nuclear weapons (and the important one were on Japanese cities, not desert.)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
grkvlt 5y ago
If you only care about fission weapons, a practically viable weapon is easy, and does not require testing. This was demonstrated by South Africa, who developed a fission weapon, using an indigenous and entirely novel isotope separation technique and no outside help. They produced a stockpile of around five weapons, with absolutely no testing. The Vela incident often referred to is outwith the relevant timescale, being in 1979 and the weapons program ran from 1984 to 1994. The devices themselves were gun-type bombs using uranium, similar to the 'little boy' (Hiroshima) design, with improvements in safety primarily. This was as a hedge against Soviet agression in the Angolan civil war, and they were intending to detonate one of the bombs as proof of their capability if the situation ever became desperate. As a pariah state due to Apartheid, the idea was that the US and allies would be forced to abandon their arms embargos and step in to help with conventional assistance in order to prevent World War III. This never happened, and South Africa is still the only state ever to have developed a viable nuclear weapons capability and then voluntarily given it up. The details are available in an excellent book by David Albright of ISIS (not that one, the Institute foir Science and International Security...) at https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/RevisitingSouthAfricasNuclearWeaponsProgram.pdf https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Revis...

I think there is a large discrepancy between hypothetically viable, and demonstrably viable.

by iab 5y ago

I think there is a large discrepancy between hypothetically viable, and demonstrably viable.

The designs are demonstrably viable. Hundreds of nukes were detonated unnecessarily to prove this point. Nations don't need to make new designs. Gun and super designs are common knowledge.

MomoXenosaga 5y ago
If you want to be on the UN Security council you need to detonate a nuke somewhere in a desert. It's a requirement.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > If you want to be on the UN Security council you need to detonate a nuke somewhere in a desert. No, you don’t. Every UN member rotates through UNSC seats. If you want a permanent Security Council seat, you need to be or be generally recognized successor in interest to one of five powers that got those seats after WW2, when only one had detonated nuclear weapons (and the important one were on Japanese cities, not desert.)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

grkvlt 5y ago

If you only care about fission weapons, a practically viable weapon is easy, and does not require testing. This was demonstrated by South Africa, who developed a fission weapon, using an indigenous and entirely novel isotope separation technique and no outside help. They produced a stockpile of around five weapons, with absolutely no testing. The Vela incident often referred to is outwith the relevant timescale, being in 1979 and the weapons program ran from 1984 to 1994. The devices themselves were gun-type bombs using uranium, similar to the 'little boy' (Hiroshima) design, with improvements in safety primarily. This was as a hedge against Soviet agression in the Angolan civil war, and they were intending to detonate one of the bombs as proof of their capability if the situation ever became desperate. As a pariah state due to Apartheid, the idea was that the US and allies would be forced to abandon their arms embargos and step in to help with conventional assistance in order to prevent World War III. This never happened, and South Africa is still the only state ever to have developed a viable nuclear weapons capability and then voluntarily given it up. The details are available in an excellent book by David Albright of ISIS (not that one, the Institute foir Science and International Security...) at https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/RevisitingSouthAfricasNuclearWeaponsProgram.pdf https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Revis...